Re: Orphan branch not well-defined?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2023, 02:12 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqplzz99xr.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwmu79ac4.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ** Unborn Branch is the better term **
>
> Yes,  To orphan is a verb that denotes the act of becoming on an
> unborn branch, and a few references to "orphan branch" in our
> documentation are misuses of the word, I would have to say.

To be fair, the use of verb "orphan" by the folks first designed the "checkout --orphan" does make quite a lot of sense and it is very much consistent with the fact that the operation leaves the index and the working tree intact (unlike "switch --orphan" that empties the contents, which came much later).

The intended use case was that the user had the current set of contents that is desirable with history that is undesirable behind it, and wanted to part with the baggage^Whistory while keeping the end state. The operation was meant to be the first step to create a "parent-less" (aka "orphaned" from the parents in the original history) commit that records the desired state. It is the reason why "checkout --orphan" keeps the contents intact and moves the HEAD to be on an unborn branch.